Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 165748 2011-09-14	HEIRS OF POLICRONIO M. URETA v. HEIRS OF LIBERATO M. URETA MENDOZA, J.
As the above factual circumstances remain unrebutted by the Heirs of Policronio, the factual findings of the RTC, which were affirmed by the CA, remain binding and conclusive upon this Court.[21]
	GR No. 172129 2008-09-12	CIR v. MIRANT PAGBILAO CORPORATION VELASCO JR., J.
As a matter of sound practice, the Court refrains from reviewing the factual determinations of the CA or reevaluate the evidence upon which its decision is founded. One exception to this rule is when the CA and the trial court diametrically differ in their findings,[16] as here. In such a case, it is incumbent upon the Court to review and determine if the CA might have overlooked, misunderstood, or misinterpreted certain facts or circumstances of weight, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[17] In the instant case, the CTA, unlike the CA, doubted the veracity of OR No. 0189 and did not appreciate the same to support MPC's claim for tax refund or credit.